Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Manager
Link: audio recording
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
Minutes: There were no apologies. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes: Ann Vinton asked a question in relation item 10 on the agenda, Red Linhay, Crown Hill. She understood that approaches had been made to several local farmers about the possibilities of them taking digestate from the site as fertiliser. As the applicant had stated that digestate will only be used on Hartnoll Farm and the land at Manley Lane, can a condition be placed to the effect that all digestate must be used as stated and not exported to other sites? This has direct implications on traffic movements and as Greener For Life (GFL) seem unable to tell the truth about traffic movements as proven at other sites even the Planning Inspector found a significant problem with the data that was supplied to him. Please will you, as they have done in Cornwall, ask for the installation of monitoring equipment at the entrance to the site to enable the LPA to check the accuracy of their figures? Finally, do you have any control over the traffic movements once permission is granted as presumably you would be able to refuse on grounds of excessive traffic but can you take enforcement action if we suddenly find that the number of movements is greater than was expected?
Mr Tony White also asked a question regarding item 10, Red Linhay, Crown Hill. He stated that he was a Crown Hill resident near the site in question. The applicant had stated that all structures including the dome will be at a lower height than the existing and adjacent agricultural building. However, the technical report states that the constructed dome is equivalent or higher than the adjacent agricultural building. The current digester is stated as being 1.9m higher than the consented structure. Therefore would it not be reasonable to ask that the dome be lowered accordingly? As well as the increased digester capacity, 2 x 500kw CHP units have been seen on the site. Given GFL’s previous actions, is it not likely that a 1 megawatt plant is in fact being built and another retrospective application will soon be submitted, along with further threats of an expensive appeal process? Can I suggest that is this application is approved, vigorous and enforceable conditions are put in place to prevent this inevitable expansion?
Dr Bratby also spoke in relation to item 10. He stated that he had four questions to address to the Committee. His first question concerned the three GFL plants at Red Linhay, at Menchine Farm and Edgeworthy Farm in Nomansland. The Chairman asked Dr Bratby to only refer to the Red Linhay application. He continued by stating that he was sure Members were aware that GFL had no regard for planning conditions and the plant had not been built to the approved plans as specified in the planning condition. It would be too much to assume that this systematic behaviour is due to incompetence so it must be due to deliberate policy of GFL to ignore the conditions and carry out unlawful developments. The longer ... view the full minutes text for item 23. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-22-01) PDF 435 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-22-48) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had the following announcements to make:
· She welcomed Cllrs Mrs C A Collis and R J Dolley back to the Committee · She reminded Members that a tour of the area to look at built out applications would take place on 14 July and asked that Members advise officers of any specific sites they would want to view. |
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
Minutes: There were no deferrals from the Plans List. |
|
THE PLANS LIST (00-24-49) PDF 409 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes: RESOLVED that the following applications be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 2 on the Plans List (16/00396/FULL – Erection of a new day centre following demolition of public toilets at public conveniences, Wyndham Road , Silverton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration (Proposed by the Chairman)
Note:
(i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member for Housing as he had been involved in the negotiation of the sale of the site;
(ii) Cllr Mrs J Roach declared a personal interest as she was the applicant.
(ii) No 3 on the Plans List (16/00500/FULL – Advertisement Consent to display 1 freestanding Heritage Information panel at The Walronds, 6 Fore Street, Cullompton) be granted advertisement consent subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration (Proposed by the Chairman)
(b) No 1 on the Plans List (16/00180/FULL – Erection of 2 dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling (Revised Scheme) 19 Exeter Road, Silverton The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the history of the site, the application site, the revisions made by the applicant since pre – app discussions, the site location plan, photographs from various aspects of Exeter Road; proposed site and roof plans and proposed elevations.
With regard to the questions posed in Public Question Time, the officer presentation had addressed the issues raised that of height, the hedge bank, the planning history and previous advice.
Consideration was given:
· The height of the proposed dwellings · The removal of the hedge and the bank · Previous advice given at pre-app stage · Parking issues and planning policies · Possible overdevelopment of the site and unsympathetic design · The closeness of the Conservation Area to the site and that there was no mention of the Conservation Officers view in the report · The impact of the development on the streetscene
RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow for a site visit by the Planning Working Group to take place to consider:
· The effect of the development on the street scene and character of the area and whether it was overdevelopment · Access and parking arrangements · The impact on existing properties
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as ... view the full minutes text for item 27. |
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (1-20-52) PDF 229 KB To be noted.
Minutes: The Committee NOTED the decisions contained in the Delegated List *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to Minutes.
|
|
MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (1-22-40) PDF 14 KB List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
Minutes: The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list * of major applications with no decision.
Application 16/00693/MOUT – erection of 13 dwellings at Hunters Hill, Culmstock was a departure from policy and therefore required determination by the Committee, it was deemed that a site visit was unnecessary.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (1-24-41) PDF 25 KB To receive for information a list of recent appeal decisions.
Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a list of appeal decisions * providing information on the outcome of recent planning appeals.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes.
|
|
To receive further expert advice with regard to the above application. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee had before it an * implications report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application and had sought additional expert planning advice.
She outlined the contents of the report stating that the expert advice requested by the Committee had been commissioned and the consultant’s full report was before Members which identified the 4 proposed reasons for refusal and the consultant’s findings. The issue of visual impact in relation to the bund and the dome where found to cause harm and could form a reason for refusal. However they could be addressed through conditions and an updated set of conditions (on the update sheet) highlighted such a condition. She explained that further issues were identified by the consultant in respect of the passing bay and site entrance visibility. Comments by the Highway Authority were outlined within the report and the updated conditions. Members viewed composite images showing the relationship between the original scheme and the current proposal.
In response to questions posed in public question time, with regard to the movement of digestate this would take place by a umbilical system however such movement could be conditioned by amending the wording of condition 10 – this addressed traffic movements and routing. It was questionable whether the installation of monitoring equipment was a reasonable request.
With regard to the colour of the dome, this had been addressed in condition 3, the current plans identified that the height of the dome had been reduced, the power generation was identified as being 500 kw if more than one CHP unit was on site and the power generation larger, this would require further planning permission. The set of conditions outlined within the report and the update sheet was very comprehensive and these would be enforced.
Dr Bratby had highlighted enforceability issues, output and the need to regularise the application. She stated that what was on site at present was not authorised and that the applicant knew that this was in place at their own risk. With regard to Government Policy approach to feedstuff for AD plants, this related to feed in tariff arrangements and had not affected planning policy With regard to retrospective applications and the Localism Act, that its retrospective nature would count against the application, the report outlined all the required material considerations. With regard to the approach of GFL and the retrospective application, the Committee had the views of the Council’s consultant before it. Alternative waste types for feedstock such as household waste would require a new planning application.
Consideration was given to:
· The current transport statement · The content of the consultant’s report · The requirement for additional monitoring to take place · The possibility of the establishment of a liaison group to monitor activities on the site · The updated conditions and the need for a clear full set of conditions to be made available to the Committee · The need to monitor output
RESOLVED that the application be deferred ... view the full minutes text for item 31. |
|
Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the application by way of presentation which included the demolition of Blagdon House. Members viewed the block plan, the proposed new building and play areas, the mature trees on the site most of which would be retained but with some loss’ the site plan, highlighting the existing and proposed buildings, the proposed elevations, the external materials, a model of the proposals and a 3D view, the proposed ground floor and first floor plans and proposed sections; the drainage plans, landscaping proposals and photographs from various aspects of the site. The architectural merits of the original buildings were also identified.
In response to the questions posed in public question time, the old Grammar School had accommodated more children but that they were older children the school and the facilities available were not suitable for 4-11 year olds. The new school would increase the capacity by 60 children. Members had visited the site and understood the issues with regard to water ingress, the need to regulate the heating and the inappropriate environment that the children were being taught in; there was a need to assess the loss of the Edwardian building against the establishment of a new school.
Consideration was given to:
· The safety issue with regard to Blagdon House · The condition of the school and the need for a replacement school to be built · The suitability of the school for the children · The available funding to provide a new school · Concerns from objectors with regard to the loss of a heritage asset · The concerns raised by the Conservation Officer · The covenant on the land · The building materials and the possible negotiation that could take place with regard to the stone finish · The need for a suitable school to be available for the children and the need to take the opportunity of funding available · The views of the Civic Society
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with delegated authority being given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to negotiate amendments to the external materials and colour.
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
Notes:
i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest in the matter as she had in the past chaired the Tiverton Education Foundation which owned the land the school was built on and chose to leave the meeting whilst discussion took place; (Cllr P J Heal, Vice Chairman took the chair);
ii) Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as a County Councillor;
iii) Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as a Member of the Civic Society and that some of the objectors were known to him;
iv) Mrs Noble (Headteacher) spoke in support of the application;
v) Cllr C J Eginton spoke ... view the full minutes text for item 32. |
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application (deferred from the previous meeting). Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application which had been deferred from the previous meeting due to the lack of photographic evidence.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report identifying the location of the group of trees via a set of photographs.
Members felt that the group of trees were both prominent and of value and therefore:
RESOLVED that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
|
|
REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMITTEE PROCEDURES - RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (3-26-23) Arising from a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration (previously considered by Planning Committee on 20 April 2016), the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 23 May 2016 requested that further consideration be given to:
a) The length of time that a Ward Member is allowed to speak to an application;
b) That photographs be posted on the website, (Public Access), in advance of the meeting; and
c) The process for examining business cases for applications be reviewed to give reassurance of the validity of the information with the possibility of sending for external examination.
Minutes: Arising from a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration (previously considered by the Planning Committee on 20 April 2016), the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 23 May 2016 had requested that further consideration be given to: a) The length of time that a Ward Member is allowed to speak to an application; b) That photographs be posted on the website, (Public Access), in advance of the meeting; and c) The process for examining business cases for applications be reviewed to give reassurance of the validity of the information with the possibility of sending for external examination. The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained the background behind the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee. Consideration was given to: · Whether unlimited time for Ward Members to speak was beneficial · If the powerpoint presentation was available on the website there could be data protection issues with regard to publishing pictures of the internal layout of local residences and possible technical issues with regard to uploading such a presentation in the appropriate place on the website and that the majority of the information was already available in Public Access. · The possibility of producing guidance and a possible proforma to help validate information with regard to business cases. It was therefore: RESOLVED that: a) Ward Members be given 5 minutes to speak on issues within their Ward.
b) Photographs and the powerpoint presentation NOT be made available on the website but continue to be made available at Planning Committee meetings.
c) The possibility of producing clear guidance and a possible proforma to aid the validation of business cases be investigated. (Proposed by the Chairman).
|
|